The High Court holds that when an accused has joined the investigation and the State does not seek custodial interrogation, anticipatory bail should be confirmed, subject to statutory conditions. This approach reaffirms existing principles in anticipatory bail jurisprudence under the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, providing binding authority for subordinate courts in Haryana.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/53289/2025 of SOURABH Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | PHHC011514052025 |
| Date of Registration | 18-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail under BNSS, 2023 |
| Questions of Law | Whether anticipatory bail should be confirmed when the petitioner joins investigation and custodial interrogation is not required by the State under BNSS, 2023. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that anticipatory bail should be confirmed for an accused who has joined investigation if the State does not seek custodial interrogation. The concession of anticipatory bail is subject to statutory conditions under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. The order is not a blanket one and only applies to the specified FIR. The State/complainant is at liberty to seek cancellation if conditions are breached or on showing sufficient cause. No opinion is expressed on merits. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail regarding a cross case (GD No.113 dated 01.08.2025) under Sections 191(3), 190, 115(1), 118(1), 351(2) BNSS, and in connection with FIR No.2377 dated 07.07.2025 under Sections 109(1), 115, 190, 191(3), 351(2) BNSS and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Kunjpura, Karnal. The petitioner joined investigation as directed; State indicated custodial interrogation was not needed; complainant opposed bail citing seriousness and risk of abscondence or interference. Court confirmed interim protection as absolute per statute. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts deciding anticipatory bail under BNSS, 2023 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clear affirmation that, where the accused joins investigation and the State no longer seeks custodial interrogation, anticipatory bail should generally be granted (made absolute).
- Application of Section 482(2) BNSS, 2023 conditions to all such anticipatory bail orders.
- Explicit direction that orders are NOT blanket protection; limited only to the concerned FIR/incidence.
- Reserved liberty for State/complainant to seek cancellation in case of violation or new sufficient cause.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court recorded that, following the interim bail order, the petitioner joined investigation as directed.
- The State, upon instructions, stated that custodial interrogation was not required.
- The complainant opposed anticipatory bail, arguing seriousness of allegations and risk of abscondence or evidence tampering.
- The Court considered the factual situation, specifically the petitioner’s compliance and the absence of State’s need for custodial interrogation.
- The interim order of bail was made absolute, but explicitly subject to the conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS, 2023.
- The Court clarified its order is not a blanket or indefinite protection from arrest and restricted its application to the relevant FIR only.
- Liberty was reserved for cancellation/recall if statutory conditions are breached or new cause shown.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Contended false implication in the FIR.
- Pointed out the cross-case was registered 25 days after the incident.
- Asserted that no specific role was attributed.
- Offered to join and cooperate in investigation.
State
- Reported compliance with direction; petitioner joined investigation.
- Stated that custodial interrogation was not required.
Complainant
- Opposed anticipatory bail.
- Argued allegations are direct and serious.
- Stated likelihood of accused absconding or interfering with prosecution evidence.
Factual Background
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail following implication in a cross-case GD No.113 dated 01.08.2025 registered at Police Station Kunjpura, Karnal for offences under Sections 191(3), 190, 115(1), 118(1), 351(2) BNSS, 2023. The case was associated with FIR No.2377 dated 07.07.2025 (Sections 109(1), 115, 190, 191(3), 351(2) BNSS and Arms Act sections). On an interim order, the petitioner joined investigation as directed. The State no longer required custodial interrogation, but the complainant vigorously opposed bail.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment interprets Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
- Application of Section 482(2) BNSS, 2023, which enumerates the conditions to be followed on grant of anticipatory bail.
- Clarification that anticipatory bail orders are not blanket protections, and are applicable only for the incident/FIR specified.
- Provision for the State/complainant to file for cancellation of bail if statutory conditions are breached.
Procedural Innovations
- Bail protection is expressly limited to the specified FIR, preventing “blanket” or indefinite orders.
- Liberty given to State/complainant to seek recall/cancellation if statutory conditions violated or for sufficient additional cause.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision reaffirms prevailing jurisprudence for anticipatory bail, as applied under the new BNSS, 2023 regime.